Sindik, J.: Differences between top senior basketball players from different team...
Acta Kinesiologica 5 (2011) 2: 31-35
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN TOP SENIOR BASKETBALL PLAYERS FROM DIFFERENT TEAM
POSITIONS IN BIG FIVE PERSONALITY TRAITS
Joško Sindik
Institute for Anthropological Research, Zagreb, Croatia
Original scientific paper
Abstract
Assessment of differences in personality traits in basketball players from different play positions in team may
contribute to better understanding of the basketball players and basketball. It could provide guidance for the
more differentiated trainer’s approach. Our research aimed at ascertaining the differential factors between
players playing in Croatian top senior teams on different play positions (point guard and shooting guard,
compared with small forward, power forward and center), with respect to Big Five personality traits. The final
sample of participants (74 basketball players) was selected from the initial sample of 107 subjects,
basketball players from nine senior teams A-1 Croatian Men's Basketball League in the championship
2006/2007. Results showed that discrimination function can't statistically significantly distinguish players that
play on different positions, in relation to dimensions of Big Five personality traits. In other words, they have
similar Big Five personality traits. However, statistically significant difference has been found for only one
particular dimension (Intellect), which has been hypothetically explained.
Key words: personality, basketball, Big Five, discrimination analysis, differences
Introduction and the aim
Basketball is a complex polystructural variable
activity characteristic for its cyclic and acyclic
motion types that are preceding the main goal of
the game, shooting the ball into the basket, as well
as preventing the opponent player to make a shot.
The game itself is divided into three main stages:
defence, attack and transition (Jukić, 1998). The
rules of basketball do not define any specific player
positions. So the positions in basketball are more
part of an overall strategy of the game. There are 5
traditional positions that most teams have in their
offense and defensive schemes. Many players today
are
interchangeable
or
can
play
many
positions. The point guard is the team leader and
play caller on the basketball court. A point guard
needs good ball handling skills, passing skills as
well as strong leadership and decision making skills
(* * *, 2008 /Ducksters/). The shooting guard in
basketball has the main responsibility of making
long outside shots including the three-point shot.
The shooting guard also should be a good passer
and able to help the point guard with the ball
handling. Along with the shooting guard, the small
forward is often the most versatile player on the
basketball team. They should be able to help with
ball handling, make an outside shot, and get
rebounds. The small forward is often a great
defensive player as well. The power forward on a
basketball team is usually responsible for
rebounding and some scoring in the paint. A power
forward should be big and strong and able to clear
out some space under the basket. Many great
power forwards in the game today do not score a
lot of points, but lead their team in rebounds. The
center is usually the biggest or tallest member of
the basketball team. The center can be a big
scorer, but also needs to be a strong rebounder and
shot blocker; in many teams the center is the final
line of defense (* * *, 2008 /Ducksters/).
Basketball, as all modern team sports games
impose ever greater requirements on players'
potential, sport selection and sports preparation. As
we mentioned, the probable future development of
sports games will probably erase the strict
differences among the basic play positions, but
roles and tasks will remain crucial components of
technical-tactical activities players are bound to
perform when playing a particular post. The
selection procedure algorithm, proposed by Trninić
et al. (2008) integrates all body of knowledge and
facilitates decision making in team sports games. It
is assumed that the future developments will need
more and more versatile players, that is, the
players who can satisfy performance criteria on two
or even more play positions. For players' overall
quality it is only important what and how many
tasks they can perform, not which is their primary
positions. Their contribution to the team play is of
the main importance: team games are played by
individuals, but only successful and well-composed
teams win (Trninić et al., 2008).
Concept of personality explains why one individual
differs from all other individuals and it explains
his/her behavioral consistency in diverse situations
(Knezović et al., 1989). The Big Five Model or the
Five-Factor Model (FFM) is descriptive and
taxonomic: it assumes the way in which personality
can be divided into a smaller number of
fundamental constructs (Macdonald, Bore, & Munro,
2008). Following that theory, personality can be
described by means of five factors: extraversion,
agreeableness,
conscientiousness,
emotional
stability and intellect (Pervin & John, 1997). Five
factors represent personality in the highest degree
of abstraction, and each of these dimensions
includes a large number of distinct specific
characteristics.
31
Sindik, J.: Differences between top senior basketball players from different team...
Extraversion accounts for the amount and intensity
of social interaction, activity level, the need for
external stimulation and the feature of joy (Trninić,
Barančić & Nazor, 2008). Agreeableness assesses
quality of interpersonal orientation towards the
others along a continuum from pity and compassion
to adversary, antagonism in thoughts, emotions
and actions. Conscientiousness describes taskoriented and goal-oriented behavior and socially
required impulse control. Neuroticism identifies
persons who tend to feel negative emotions
(anxiety, bitterness, sorrow), who suffer from
unrealistic ideas, excessive yearning and urges and
have or suffer from maladaptive stress-coping
strategies. Intellect (Openness to experience)
assesses proactive seeking and appreciation of
experience for its own sake, tolerance for the
unknown and exploration of the unfamiliar (Pervin
&
John,
1997).
Several
research
studies
demonstrated that extraversion and emotional
stability from FFM are congruent to extraversion
and neuroticism from the Eysenck’s model (Mlačić
& Knezović, 1997).
The main aim of this research was to determine the
differences in big five personality traits, between
top Croatian senior basketball basketball players
that different play positions in team. For practical
purpose,
identification
of
such
personality
differences could contribute to better understanding
of top Croatian senior players. On the other hand, it
could contribute that coaches use this information
to make improvements in their own work, in their
training practice and during coaching basketball
games. It is assumed that the differences in
personality between the guards (shooting and point
guards) and forwards (small and power, together
with centers) don’t exist. We argued this hypothesis
with a complexity and interconnectedness of all
play positions in the team, and their dependence on
the constantly changing tactical variants during the
basketball game.
Methods
Variables
The International Personality Item Pool 50 (IPIP50)
is a shorter version of a Goldberg IPIP100 crosscultural Big-Five questionnaire (Goldberg, 2001,
from Goldberg et al., 2005). The current study
makes use of the 50-item version consisting of 10
items for each of the Big-Five personality factors:
Extraversion
(E),
Agreeableness
(A),
Conscientiousness (C), Emotional Stability (ES),
and Intellect (I). We administered the IPIP items
with a 5-point, Likert-type scale ranging from 1
(very inaccurate) to 5 (very accurate) as in the
original instrument (Goldberg, 1999). The IPIP
scales have good internal consistency and relate
strongly to major dimensions of personality
assessed by two leading questionnaires. The IPIP50
items were translated into Croatian by Boris Mlačić
(Mlačić, 2002, in Mlačić & Goldberg, 2007) at the
Croatian Studies. He found Cronbach’s alpha (α)
indexes
that
indicate good
reliability: for
extraversion, reliability coefficient was α = .88, for
32
Acta Kinesiologica 5 (2011) 2: 31-35
Agreeableness α = .81, for Conscientiousness α =
.82, for Emotional Stability α =.90 and for the
dimension Intellect was α =.78. Gow et al. (2005)
examined the structure of the 50-item IPIP in three
different adult samples, in each case justifying a 5factor solution, with only minor discrepancies. Age
differences were comparable to previous findings
using
other
inventories.
Conscientiousness,
Extraversion and Emotional Stability/Neuroticism
scales of the IPIP were highly correlated with those
of the NEO-FFI (r = 0.69 to −0.83). Agreeableness
and Intellect /Openness scales correlated less
strongly (r = 0.49 and 0.59). Correlations between
IPIP and EPQ-R Extraversion and Emotional
Stability/Neuroticism were high, at 0.85 and −0.84.
Mlačić & Goldberg (2007) studied a Croatian
version of both the 100-item and the 50-item
versions of the IPIP Big-Five markers; both selfreports and peer ratings in large Croatian samples
of research participants showed clear 5-factor
orthogonal structures that were nearly identical to
the American structure. Internal consistency
reliabilities (Cronbach’s alpha) in this research were
something lower, but satisfying, ranging from .56
to .73 (Extraversion α = .56, Agreeableness α =
.73, Conscientiousness α =.71, Emotional Stability
α = .65, Intellect α = .68). In our sample,
participants showed 5-factor orthogonal structure,
nearly correspondent with the original one.
'Basketball variable', i.e. dependent variable in
discrimination analysis, is player’s position in team.
It is defined from the base of players on the Portal
Kosarka.hr (2008). The players are divided into two
sub-groups: 44 guards (26 shooting and 18 point)
in one group and 30 centers (9) and forwards (11
small and 10 powers) in the second group. The
reason for dividing the number of participants in
just such a two-sample, instead of four or five, was
practical: the small total number of players in the
final sample.
Participants and procedure
Population from which the purposeful sample of
participants was drawn represented by sport
success top Croatian senior basketball players, who
played in nine men's senior teams of A-1 Croatian
Men's
Basketball
League
in
2006/2007:
«Cedevita», «Svjetlost», «Borik», «Kvarner»,
«Dubrava», «Dubrovnik», «Alkar», «Šibenik» and
«Osijek». The average chronological age was 23.
The final sample of participants (74 basketball
players) was selected from the initial sample of 107
players. The criteria for selection of a player into
the final sample of respondents was the number of
minutes in play (minimum ten minutes per game),
i.e. the number of games played (minimum eight
games played in championship). The players were
examined between sixth and eighth round of A-1
league championship (from December 2006 until
mid January 2007).
Results and Discussion
Trends of average results for basketball players
who play in two different positions in the team were
practically identical.
Sindik, J.: Differences between top senior basketball players from different team...
Descriptive statistics for the dimensions of the
IPIP50 for A-1 Croatian senior league basketball
players (Table 1) showed that Conscientiousness
and Agreeableness are the most pronounced
personality characteristics at basketball players.
Data for all the variables are distributed normally.
Comparing with the most of samples in other
Acta Kinesiologica 5 (2011) 2: 31-35
researches (Guenole & Chernyshenko, 2005;
Goldberg et al, 2005; Gow et al., 2005), in our
research the level of Conscientiousness is
something higher level than in ‘usual’ samples.
Possible reason could is distinctive: basketball
players have to be conscientious, to themselves, as
same as to their team.
Table 1. Descriptive statistics for the dimensions of the IPIP50 for A-1 Croatian senior league basketball
players: shooting and point guards (44); small and power forwards, centers (30)
Variable
Mean
Extraversion
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
Emotional Stability
Intellect
33,426
37,404
37,277
33,957
35,787
Variable
Mean
Extraversion
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
Emotional Stability
Intellect
32,407
36,630
36,889
33,407
33,444
Shooting and point guards
Std.
Minimum
Maximum
deviation
4,586
22,00
44,00
5,343
23,00
50,00
5,728
24,00
50,00
5,250
25,00
45,00
4,814
25,00
46,00
Small, power forwards and centers
Std.
Minimum
Maximum
Deviation
4,396
24,00
40,00
4,289
30,00
47,00
4,750
23,00
44,00
5,063
23,00
44,00
4,117
26,00
41,00
KolmogorovSmirnov Z
0,752
0,790
0,632
0,552
0,827
p
> ,20
> ,20
> ,20
> ,20
> ,20
KolmogorovSmirnov Z
0,674
0,480
0,482
0,507
0,686
p
> ,20
> ,20
> ,20
> ,20
> ,20
Table 2. Correlations between the dimensions of the IPIP50 for A-1 Croatian senior league basketball
players: shooting and point guards (44); small and power forwards, centers (30)
Variable
Extraversion
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
Emotional Stability
Intellect
Extraversion
1
Variable
Extraversion
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
Emotional Stability
Intellect
Extraversion
1
Shooting and point guards
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
0,255
-0,117
1
0,136
1
Small, power forwards and centers
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
0,463**
0,588**
1
0,706**
1
Emotional Stability
0,212
0,130
0,290*
1
Emotional Stability
0,355
0,390*
0,442*
1
Intellect
0,186
0,103
0,278
0,107
1
Intellect
0,062
0,112
0,239
-0,018
1
Table 3. Discrimination analysis between players that play in A-1 Croatian Men's Basketball League
Championship on different team positions in relation to the dimensions of the IPIP50
Characteristic root
Wilks 
0,072
0,933
Correlation with
F-test
Wilks 
discrimination factor
(1,72)
,988
,871
-0,062
,994
,414
0,334
,999
,089
0,128
,997
,193
0,329
,941
4,498
0,321
Discrimination function
VARIABLE
Extraversion
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
Emotional Stability
Intellect
Pearson
inter-correlations
between
all
the
dimensions of the IPIP50 for the entire sample A-1
Croatian senior league basketball players, show low
but statistically significant positive correlations
between the dimensions Conscientiousness and
Agreeableness (r=,29; p<,05), Agreeableness and
Canonical correlation
0,259
M
p
Guards
>,20
33,426
>,20
37,404
>,20
37,277
>,20
33,957
<,05
35,787
2
 -test
(degrees
of freedom)
4,819
(5)
M Forwards,
center
32,407
36,630
36,889
33,407
33,444

Guards
4,586
5,343
5,728
5,250
4,814
p
p>,20
 Forwards,
center
4,396
4,289
4,750
5,063
4,117
Extraversion (r=,32; p<,05), Extraversion and Em.
Stability (r=,26; p<,05), Conscientiousness and
Em. Stability (r=,34; p<,05), Conscientiousness
and Intellect (r=,27; p<,05). Conscientiousness is
the highest correlated with other (especially for the
one team sport) 'desirable' variables.
33
Sindik, J.: Differences between top senior basketball players from different team...
This fact support previous explanation, connected
with a mean value for this dimension, about
possible 'special meaning' of this trait for the
basketball players. Inspecting separate correlations
for the guards and forwards/centers (Table 2), we
can see that trends that are typical for the total
sample of basketball players are more obvious at
players that play on the positions forwards and
centers. In that sub-sample, all the correlations
between
Extraversion,
Agreeableness,
Conscientiousness and Emotional Stability (except
one) are positive, significant and medium high.
Insignificant intercorrelations were found between
the dimension Intellect and all other dimensions.
Possible interpretation of this result may be the fact
that Intellect is perhaps not so important
personality trait, which players really need to have:
basketball players have a priority to direct
individual actions as a function of team success.
Intercorrelations in the guards' sub-sample are not
statistically significant, except low but positive
correlation
between
Conscientiousness
and
Emotional Stability. Perhaps the guards are just
more diverse personalities in relation to the
forwards and centers: it may be due to the more
'creative' role in the team, comparing with the
forwards or centers. On the other hand, forwards
and centers could have more homogenous, more
similar
personalities.
Table
4
shows
that
discrimination function did not differ significantly
basketball players who play in different positions in
the team. Group centroids values are 0,200 for the
guards and -0,349 for the forwards/centers.
Discrimination function only 62,2 % original
grouped cases classify correctly. Consequently, the
players can't be statistically significantly differed on
the basis of their playing position in the basketball
team. Structural coefficients that indicate a
correlation
between
individual
discrimination
variables with discrimination function, in this case
vary between –0,062 and 0,334. In univariate
analysis of variance, with respect to the
discriminate function, one statistically significant
difference was however found, for the dimension
Intellect, in a direction of higher means for the
guards, comparing with forwards/centers. The
hypothesis about the more 'creative' role in the
team for guards, comparing with the forwards or
centers, could be given even in this situation. The
main result of this research is that in general there
are no statistically significant differences in Big Five
dimensions of personality between basketball
players that play on different positions. However,
only the dimension of Intellect is the differentiating
individual variable that statistically significantly
differ the players teams in A-1 championship
league that play on different positions, in a
direction of statistically significant higher results for
the guards.
Acta Kinesiologica 5 (2011) 2: 31-35
On the other hand, guards (at least in this
research, considering only Big Five personality
traits) are more complex personalities. The main
weakness of the research could be the small
sample of top players, as well as specificity of the
Croatian population of top senior basketball
players. This has a direct influence onto reduced
possibility of generalisation of results. The
potentially most important reason for the results
obtained came as a consequence of the chosen
sample of respondents. It is, however, possible that
relatively small variability in personality dimensions
is the result of multiple selectivity of the basketball
players' samples. The number of games played and
time in play contributed to reduction of the number
of respondents in the final sample. On the other
hand, the main advantage of the research lay in the
fact that practically all available players were tested
in
the
targeted
A-1
basketball
league
championship.
Consequently,
the
principles
revealed could be useful for the concrete sample
(practically the population) of basketball players,
which could serve as stimulation for coaches to
increase their efforts. Results of this research,
besides the scientific, can have a practical value as
well. They can serve as guideline for a more
successful work of coaches, who can give greater
emphasis to working with the guards, as more
'diverse' personalities (individualized approach). In
future researches, the number of participants could
be increased as much as possible (by testing
injured and other absent players). In this situation,
we could compare players that play on all five
different positions in the team. However, it might
be good to include in the sample the players of four
Croatian most successful teams (competing in NLBleague) and thus (probably) obtain higher
variability in personality traits. An improvement
could also be a multiple repetition of the same type
of research during few basketball championships.
Conclusion
Discrimination function did not differ significantly
basketball players who play in different positions in
the team, according to their Big Five personality
traits. So we support initial null-hypothesis that
there is no difference in personality traits between
the basketball players who play on different
positions in the team. One individual significant
difference is found: dimension of Intellect is the
only differentiating individual variable, in a direction
of statistically significant higher results for the
guards, comparing with forwards/centers. Much
more statistically significant correlations are found
in the sub-sample of forwards/centers, than in
guards' sub-sample, which may indicate the
possibility
that
the
guards
are
complex
personalities.
Literature
Goldberg, L.R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public-domain, personality inventory measuring the lower-level
facets of several Five-Factor models. In: Marveled, I., Deary, I.J., de Fruyt, F., & Ostendorf, F. (Eds.)
Personality psychology in Europe, 7, (pp. 7–28). Tilburg: Tilburg University Press.
34
Sindik, J.: Differences between top senior basketball players from different team...
Acta Kinesiologica 5 (2011) 2: 31-35
Goldberg, L.R., Johnson, J.A., Eber, H.W., Hogan, R., Ashton, M.C., & Cloninger, C.R. (2005). The
International Personality Item Pool and the future of public-domain personality measures. Journal of
Research in Personality, 40, 84–96.
Gow, A.J., Whiteman, M.C., Pattie, A. & Deary, I.J. (2005). Goldberg’s ‘IPIP’ Big-Five factor markers: Internal
consistency and concurrent validation in Scotland. Personality and Individual Differences, 39(2), 317-329.
Guenole, N., & Chernyshenko, O.S. (2005). The suitability of Goldberg's Big Five IPIP personality markers in
New Zealand: a dimensionality, bias, and criterion validity evaluation. New Z J of Psychology, 34, 86–96.
Jukić, I. (1998). Monitoring of motor-functional preparation in annual training cycle of top women basketball
players. [In Croatian.]. (Master thesis). Zagreb: Faculty of Physical Culture.
Knezović, Z., Kulenović, A., Šakić, V., Zarevski, P., & Žužul, M. (1989). Psihološke karakteristike osuđenih
osoba. Zagreb: Znanstvena edicija časopisa Penološke teme.
Macdonald, C., Bore, M., & Munro, D. (2008). Values in action scale and the Big 5: An empirical indication of
structure. Journal of Research in Personality, 42(4), 787–799.
Mlačić, B., & Goldberg L.R. (2007). An analysis of a cross-cultural personality inventory: The IPIP Big-Five
factor markers in Croatia. Journal of Personality Assessment, 88, 168-177.
Mlačić, B., & Knezović, Z. (1997). Struktura i relacije Big Five markera i Eysenckova upitnika ličnosti.
[Structure and realtions of Big five markers and Eysenck personality inventory. In Croatian.]. Društvena
istraživanja, 27(1), 1–21.
Pervin, A.L., & John, P.O. (1997). Personality: Theory and research. 7th ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Trninić, S,. Papić, V., Trninić, V., & Vukičević, D. (2008). Player selection procedures in team sports games.
Acta Kinesiologica, 2(1), 24-28.
Trninić, V., Barančić, M., & Nazor, M. (2008). The Five-Factor model of personality and aggressiveness in
prisoners and athletes. Kinesiology 42, 170-181.
* * * (2008). Basketball player positions. Retrieved May 30. 2010. from: http://www.ducksters.com/
sports/basketballpositions.php.
* * * (2008). Igrači – baza podataka. [Players – database. In Croatian.]. Retrieved May 17. 2008. from:
http://www.kosarka.hr/main.asp?dir=sc.
RAZLIKE VRHUNSKIH HRVATSKIH SENIORSKIH KOŠARKAŠA RAZLIČITIH POZICIJA U
MOMČADI U VELIKIH PET OSOBINA LIČNOSTI
Sažetak
Utvrđivanje razlika u crtama ličnosti košarkaša koji igraju na različitim pozicijama u momčadi, može
doprinijeti boljem razumijevanju košarkaša i košarke. To može dati smjernice za diferenciraniji trenerski
pristup. Cilj istraživanja bio je utvrđivanje faktora razlika u dimenzijama Velikih Pet osobina ličnosti kod
vrhunskih hrvatskih seniorskih košarkaša, koji igraju na različitim pozicijama u momčadi (razigravač, šuter,
krilo, krilni centar, centar). Finalni uzorak sudionika (74 košarkaša) izabran je iz početnog uzorka od 107
ispitanika, košarkaša iz devet seniorskih momčadi A-1 hrvatske košarkaške lige u prvenstvu
2006/2007. Rezultati su pokazali da diskriminacija funkcija ne može znatno razlikovati statistički košarkaše
koji igraju na različitim pozicijama u odnosu na dimnezije Velikih Pet osobina ličnosti. Drugim riječima,
košarkaši su slični u odnosu na Velikih Pet osobina ličnosti. Međutim, statistički značajna razlika je pronađena
za samo jednu pojedinačnu dimenziju (Intelekt), te je i hipotetski objašnjena.
Ključne riječi: ličnost, košarka, Velikih Pet, diskriminacijska analiza, razlike
Received: August 12, 2011
Accepted: December 10, 2011
Correspondence to:
Joško Sindik, PhD
Institute for Anthropological Research
10000 Zagreb, Ljudevita Gaja 32, Croatia
Phone: 00 385 (0)1 5535 122
E-mail: [email protected]
35